Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Gibb and Nicholas Dakin

Monday 29th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nick Gibb]

I agree with my right hon. Friend completely. As we enter a new global economy, we want to be able to trade with our European partners and need to speak European languages, as well as languages throughout the world, which is why we believe in the EBacc. I wish the Labour party would support our ambition to have 75% of students taking the EBacc combination of GCSEs by 2022.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The provision of languages post-16 has shrunk since 2010. This is largely due—or partly due at least—to the continually growing 16-to-18 funding gap on the Government’s watch. Is it not time to raise the rates so that, among other things, languages can prosper again post-16?

[Nick Gibb]

Actually, that is not the reason. The numbers taking A-level maths and further maths are at all-time highs. Languages have suffered because of the decision in 2004 on GCSEs. It is difficult for someone to take an A-level in a language if they have not studied it at GCSE.

Teacher Recruitment and Retention Strategy

Debate between Nick Gibb and Nicholas Dakin

Monday 28th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nick Gibb]

The funding will be provided when the strategy is fully rolled out in September 2021. We are rolling it out earlier, in September 2020, to Bradford, Doncaster, Greater Manchester and the north-east—I think I said Bristol earlier, but I actually meant Bradford. The strategy will be fully funded, and £130 million has been agreed with the Treasury despite the fact that it goes into the next spending review period.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I very much welcome this long overdue strategy. There is some evidence of burnout for teachers in mid and later career. Is the Minister looking to see which academy chains and local authorities perform well in teacher retention and which perform less well, and is he learning appropriate lessons from that?

[Nick Gibb]

As I mentioned earlier, the new Ofsted framework will be looking at things like teacher workload, as part and parcel of the leadership and management judgments made about a school. The Government take teacher workload extremely seriously, which is why we set up the three review groups to look at data management, excessive marking and lesson preparation. We have accepted all the recommendations of those three review groups.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Gibb and Nicholas Dakin

Monday 17th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nick Gibb]

I share my hon. Friend’s admiration for the Europa School. It teaches the European baccalaureate, which is of a very high standard. The continuation of that qualification will depend on discussions with the European Schools system after the UK leaves the European Union.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

There has been a significant contraction in the post-16 modern languages curriculum as a result of the significant funding cut. Funding has been frozen since 2013-14. Is it not time to raise the rate so that that curriculum can get back to where it should be?

[Nick Gibb]

To make A-level foreign languages classes viable, we need more sixth formers to opt for the subjects. To raise the uptake of A-level, we first need to increase the number of pupils who take a GCSE in a foreign language, reversing the damage caused by the last Labour Government in 2004, when they downgraded the importance of languages.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Gibb and Nicholas Dakin

Monday 6th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)]

I congratulate the school in my hon. Friend’s constituency. More than half of teachers are trained through school-led systems, which means that schools have more control over the quality of the training that their teachers receive, and that schools can look for graduates and undergraduates to join their staff in the most effective way.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The Support Our Sixth-formers funding impact assessment, which was published today, shows general sixth-form education under real strain. Bearing in mind that each sixth former is funded at £4,500, compared with £5,700 for a pupil aged between 11 to 16, will the Secretary of State take the opportunity of the Budget to use last year’s underspend and uplift funding by £200 for each student aged 16 to 18?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Gibb and Nicholas Dakin

Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Nick Gibb]

Very many children who are educated at home are educated to an extremely high standard, and many parents want this freedom for their children. Local authorities have a duty to ensure that children who are not in school are receiving an adequate education.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

T9. It cannot be right—can it?—that sixth formers are given 21% less funding than 11 to 16-year-olds, so will the Government respond to the constructive campaign by the Association of School and College Leaders, the Association of Colleges and the Sixth Form Colleges Association by fundamentally reviewing post-16 funding?

Sixth-form Education: International Comparisons

Debate between Nick Gibb and Nicholas Dakin

Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

Area reviews can take schools into account, but 2,000 or more schools have sixth forms, and if we were to bring them all into the area reviews, that would make the whole system unmanageable. The free school system was introduced to challenge the status quo in terms of sixth forms and in terms of schools themselves, because in the past we have had monopoly provision of new schools. The free school movement has been phenomenal in opening up sixth forms such as King’s College London Mathematics School, where 100% of youngsters are getting A or A* grades in maths A-level, and Exeter Mathematics School. These schools are challenging the status quo in these areas and providing a very high-quality education. We need to see more of those innovative and demanding free sixth-form schools that open up for young people opportunities that they would not otherwise have had.

[Nic Dakin]

I have been listening to the Minister very carefully. Does he accept that the research available demonstrates that since 2010 the funding for 16 to 18-year-olds has been reduced in real terms, and that the impact of that has been to reduce the level of tuition time to 13 to 17 hours per student? I am interested in whether he recognises that as an issue, and if so, whether he sees it as a problem.

[Mr Gibb]

I absolutely recognise that resources are tight for 16-to-19 education and training. In recent years, we have had to make some post-16 savings while working hard to sustain funding levels for schools, bearing in mind the fact that success in school pre-16 is the best predictor of outcomes in post-16 education.

We have made clear commitments to 16-to-19 education, where we have protected the base rate of funding at £4,000 per student for all types of providers until 2020. This was announced in the 2015 spending review, at a time when public finances are under great pressure. Providers receive additional funding for students taking part in more expensive programmes, and there is also a large programme uplift for providers who have pupils studying four or more A-levels, provided they achieve minimum grade requirements, and about £540 million of funding is allocated each year to enable schools and colleges to give extra support to disadvantaged students. That is essential in helping those from poorer backgrounds or those who, pre-16, have not attained well enough to get the help they need to succeed.

Overall, we plan to invest about £7 billion during 2016-17—taking apprenticeships together with other education and training options—to ensure that there is a place in education or training for every 16 to 19-year-old who wants one. This commitment means that all types of providers are funded for 600 planned hours per year per full-time student. That level of funding supports a significant programme of study. For example, it will allow for three A-levels and 50 hours of tutorials, plus either one AS-level or about 150 hours of enrichment or work experience. While we have not been able to protect budgets for sixth-form education in real terms, there is funding to ensure that every sixth-form age student has the opportunity to undertake high-quality study that will help them to move on to skilled work or further or higher education.

Our commitment to the post-16 sector has contributed to the current record-high proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds in education, training or apprenticeships, and the lowest proportion of young people not in education, employment or training since consistent records began in 1994. Applications to higher education from 18-year-olds are at an all-time high.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe for raising this important issue. I recognise that there is more to do to continue improving our post-16 education system to ensure it is established as one of the world’s best, but we should be proud of the achievements so far and recognise that we are building a system that is both affordable and in keeping with our country’s needs.

Question put and agreed to.

Teachers Strike

Debate between Nick Gibb and Nicholas Dakin

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)]

There is absolutely no justification for this strike. The National Union of Teachers asked for talks, and we are having talks. Since May, the Department for Education has been engaged in a new programme of talks with the major teaching unions, including the NUT, focused on all the concerns raised during the strike. Even before then we were engaged in round-table discussions with the trade unions, and both the Secretary of State and I meet the trade union leaders regularly to discuss their concerns.

This strike is politically motivated and has nothing to do with raising standards in education. In the words of Deborah Lawson, the general secretary of the non-striking teacher union Voice, today’s strike is a

“futile and politically motivated gesture”.

Kevin Courtney, the acting general secretary of the NUT, made it clear in his letter to the Secretary of State on 28 June that the strike was about school funding and teacher pay and conditions, yet this year’s school budget is greater than in any previous year, at £40 billion—some £4 billion higher than 2011-12. At a time when other areas of public spending have been significantly reduced, the Government have shown our commitment to education by protecting school spending.

We want to work with the profession and with the teacher unions, and we have been doing that successfully in our joint endeavour to reduce unnecessary teacher workload. With 15,000 more teachers in the profession than in 2010, teaching remains one of the most popular and attractive professions in which to work. The industrial action by the NUT is pointless, but it is far from inconsequential. It disrupts children’s education, inconveniences parents, and damages the profession’s reputation in the eyes of the public, but our analysis shows that because of the dedication of the vast majority of teachers and headteachers, seven out of eight schools are refusing to close.

Our school workforce is and must remain a respected profession suitable for the 21st century, but this action is seeking to take the profession back in public perception to the tired and dated disputes of the 20th century. More importantly, this strike does not have a democratic mandate from a majority even of NUT members. It is based on a ballot for which the turnout was just 24.5%, representing less than 10% of the total teacher workforce.

Our ground-breaking education reforms are improving pupil outcomes, challenging low expectations and poor pupil behaviour in schools, and increasing the prestige of the teaching profession. This anachronistic and unnecessary strike is a march back into a past that nobody wants our schools to revisit.

[Nic Dakin]

Not only have we had the first junior doctors strike on this Government’s watch, but today we have failure in another public service with the teachers strike. Sadly, this Government have relished attacking education professionals, undermining them and describing them as “the blob”, instead of engaging with them and celebrating their role in driving up individual child and school performance. At a time when people have a right to look to Government for stability and security, a breakdown of trust among teachers and a strike of this nature is most unfortunate.

At the heart of this is concern felt by people on the frontline, be they teachers, head teachers or parents, about future school budgets. Everyone knows that despite the Secretary of State’s protestations, school budgets are going to fall in real terms, year on year, up to 2020. Head teachers know it, parents know it, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed it. The only person who is shoving her head in the sand in total denial is the Secretary of State. That failure of Government has resulted in what we are witnessing today—massive disruption, classes cancelled and pupils sent home.

The Chancellor has made it clear that he is tearing up his fiscal rules. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) asked yesterday, will the Government now commit to securing our children’s future by reversing the planned cut in funding and securing the necessary cash for our nation’s children? As I asked yesterday, will the Minister commit to publishing the Government’s response to the School Teachers Review Body by the end of this academic year so that head teachers can plan effectively?

It is clear that the Government have lost the plot. They have a problem with teachers—they cannot recruit or retain enough, and they have lost teachers’ confidence in large numbers. It is clear today that our children, who are our future, are paying the price of Tory education failure.

[Mr Gibb]

It is nice to hear from the shadow shadow Schools Minister on the fourth row of the Opposition Benches. The only people who are undermining the teaching profession are the leadership of the National Union of Teachers. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman is jumping on this dispute to make cheap political points, instead of joining the Government and condemning this unnecessary and pointless strike. Will he now say that he opposes this strike by the NUT, which is disrupting children’s education and inconveniencing parents?

Finally, just to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point about the School Teachers Review Body report, we will publish the report, together with our response and a draft revised school teachers pay and conditions document, as soon as we have completed our consideration of it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Gibb and Nicholas Dakin

Monday 4th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

What I am saying is that, with the new freedoms academies have, they are able to pay salaries to attract the best teachers. That is a very good policy; it enables them to retain and attract the graduates in maths, physics and modern languages that schools and headteachers are telling us they need to recruit.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The School Teachers Review Body reported a very long time ago, and we are nearly at the end of the academic year. What is holding up the Government’s response to this report?

[Mr Gibb]

Ah, so there is my shadow, sitting on the Back Benches. He is very welcome. I wish he were sitting on the Front Bench and not there. However, in answer to his question, we are currently considering the STRB report, and we will publish it shortly, together with the Government’s response.

School Governance (Constitution and Federations) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2016

Debate between Nick Gibb and Nicholas Dakin

Tuesday 14th June 2016 General Committees

[The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I have listened with great pleasure to the opening comments of the hon. Member for Scunthorpe, although it would surprise many who are listening to know that we are debating the School Governance (Constitution and Federations) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2016, not the excellent education White Paper, “Educational Excellence Everywhere”. We are debating S.I. 2016, No. 204.

The regulations, which were laid before both Houses on 25 February, amend the School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2012 so that all governors in maintained schools in England are required to have an enhanced criminal records certificate from the Disclosure and Barring Service, if they do not already have one. The hon. Gentleman should welcome that, as I hope will all Committee members. He asked specifically whether all educational institutions will be bound by the same rules, and I can confirm that they will be. The rules apply to academies and maintained schools, and proprietors of independent schools are governed by the Education (Independent School Standards) Regulations 2014, which contain the same requirement.

[Nic Dakin]

While the Minister is being comprehensive, can he mention sixth-form colleges and further education colleges?

[Mr Gibb]

Yes. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about sixth-form colleges after the Committee, if I may.

The regulations also amend the School Governance (Federations) (England) Regulations 2012 to provide that the governing body of every federation of two or more maintained schools includes two parent governors.

The regulations bring maintained schools into line with current practice in the academies sector, where DBS checks are already compulsory for every person involved in governance. Similarly, academy trusts, however many schools they contain, have never been required to have more than two parents on the board. That allows governing bodies to remain at a workable size, enabling them to make sound and strategic decisions for their group of schools. We have consulted the Department’s advisory group on governance, which includes all organisations with a key interest in governance, and I emphasise that the National Governors Association supports both the measures.

Governors hold an important public office, and it is essential that we know that they are not unsuitable for their role. We have taken a number of measures to increase transparency in that area, including expecting governing bodies to publish their arrangements on their websites. Individuals should be disqualified from governance roles in maintained schools on a number of grounds, including if they have a criminal conviction involving certain sentences and imprisonment. Until now, the arrangements have relied on governors voluntarily disclosing such information or the clerk to the governing body requesting it, in contrast with the position in academies, where all members and trustees, and those on local governing bodies in multi-academy trusts, must be DBS checked.

Term-time Holidays

Debate between Nick Gibb and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 19th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

Before 2013 authorised family holidays made up between 5% and 6% of pupil absences. That figure dropped to 2.3% in 2013-14 and to 1.2% in 2014-15. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, I do not believe that we should be returning to the Dickensian world where the needs of industry and commerce take precedence over the education of children. His constituency of St Austell and Newquay, in the beautiful county of Cornwall, has a hugely successful and thriving tourism industry that generates about £2 billion of income for the UK economy. I doubt that the Cornish tourism industry will be best pleased by his assertion that tourism in Cornwall is dependent on truanting children for its survival.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Another week, another crisis for the Department for Education: Ministers really do need to get a grip. Their obsession with school structures means that they focus on the wrong issues and fail to deal with the bread-and-butter issues that matter to parents.

All the evidence shows that regular attendance at school is crucial to ensuring that children fulfil their potential, and 100% attendance records should be the ambition of all children in all schools. However, this problem is of the Government’s own making. When changing the guidance to headteachers back in 2013, they should have carried out a full impact assessment much earlier and acted to address concerns. Back in the autumn, the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) led a Westminster Hall debate on the 50,000-strong petition on this subject. The Government said then that they would look at the concerns raised, so they have known that this ruling was coming for a long time—they could have clarified the law and they have not.

This ruling is the worst of both worlds. It puts parents and headteachers in a very difficult position and is not in the best interests of children. By and large, the system up to 2012, with heads having a small amount of discretion, was working well. Parents and headteachers had a clear signal that children should be in school. It is right that headteachers who know their parents and school community well, and are accountable for their children and school, should have appropriate discretion. Will the Minister pledge to work with all interested parties across this House and outside this House to clarify the law in the interests of pupils, schools and parents? We pledge to work with him on that.

The reality is that Ministers have been asleep at the wheel, focusing on the wrong issues when we have teacher shortages and problems in primary assessment. It is time for them to take their head out of the sand and deal with these fundamental issues rather than fixating on school types at the expense of raising school standards. Will the Minister do that now?

[Mr Gibb]

I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I do feel that he is not on the same side as us with regard to raising school standards. Improving school attendance is absolutely key to raising academic standards. Under the previous Labour Government, it became accepted wisdom that parents could take their children out of school for term-time holidays for up to 10 days a year. Those numbers were causing an issue for us. We had to address the problem that we inherited from the previous Labour Government—[Interruption.]

Key Stage 2 Tests

Debate between Nick Gibb and Nicholas Dakin

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement. The Government have taken their eye off the ball. Ministers have obsessed for months over a plan for forced academisation, a plan which was never about raising standards and which was self-evidently flawed from the start. Parents did not want or need forced academisation. They made that extremely clear and played a key role in forcing the Government into a humiliating policy U-turn last week, which was confirmed by the Secretary of State in her humiliating statement yesterday. What does matter to parents, however, is having an appropriate and supportive assessment regime for their child. They want to know how their child is performing at school, how they can help to close any gaps in their knowledge and how they can support them to do their best.

The Government have let parents down at every step of the way. Today’s debacle is just the latest in a sorry line of chaos in primary assessment. First, with no proper consultation with parents, school leaders or teachers, the Government scrapped the assessment system of levels in schools with no regard to what would replace it, creating significant uncertainty and anxiety among the professionals delivering the primary curriculum. It created confusion for parents, with many schools simply attempting to reintroduce their own watered-down version of levels assessment that failed to adequately articulate exactly how well children were getting on. Ministers were then forced to push back the deadline for primary assessments after failing to deliver the necessary resources for teachers in time.

Following that came the embarrassment of the Government’s failure to introduce baseline assessment. By rushing ahead with the policy without properly involving professionals or parents, the Government failed to spot the fundamental flaw in the design, which was that the tests that they had developed were insufficiently comparable. As a result, they were forced to abandon their approach to baseline tests entirely. Furthermore, just three weeks ago, we learned that the key stage 1 spelling and grammar test had been accidentally published online in December 2015 as a practice paper. Answers to parliamentary questions show that it was downloaded more than 18,000 times before Ministers realised that there was an issue. As a result, the Government were forced to cancel the test, invalidating the work of many children, teachers and parents.

There has been a constant stream of chop and change in primary assessment under this Government. Since September, the Department for Education has updated or clarified on average at least one primary school assessment resource every other working day. The situation has become so ludicrous that the Department is now having to start clarifying its clarifications. Without a doubt, the confusion and chaos created in primary assessment has led to a damaging fall in confidence among parents and teachers about the reliability and validity of assessment in schools.

As 10 and 11-year-olds are sitting down to take the key stage 2 spelling and grammar test this morning, we now learn that the test has already been published online. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, to lose one test may be regarded as a mistake, but to lose both looks like carelessness. It could not be made up. It is a serious breach on top of a series of multiple failures. How on earth can parents have confidence in the assessment regime when the Department for Education has completely lost control of the tests for which it is responsible? How can we be confident that the rest of the test process is secure? Remember, the tests are not only important for individual pupils, but part of the performance data by which schools are judged. We can have no confidence in their being used for that purpose after what we have heard today.

The National Association of Head Teachers is right to say:

“We cannot see how school level results can be published or a national benchmark set on such shaky data.”

Headteachers and parents deserve a firm guarantee from the Minister today that no primary school will be forced to become an academy on the basis of these compromised tests. It is time for him to be honest with then, honest with himself and—[Interruption.] The reality is that parents, school leaders and teachers have lost confidence in this Government’s approach to assessment and exams. It is time for the Minister to be honest with them, honest with himself and honest with us. He needs to hold up his hands, admit that he has got it wrong and stop trying to blame others for his Department’s mistakes. It is time for him to engage properly with parents and teachers to establish an approach to primary assessment that has everybody’s confidence and not just his. He needs to look into the eyes of all those 10 and 11-year-olds who are taking the tests today and say sorry for getting it wrong and sorry for letting them down. After all, that is what we teach children to do: admit their mistakes, apologise for them, learn from them and move on. So will he now learn his lesson and turn his attention away from the misguided obsession with structures at the expense of raising standards in schools? Will he turn his focus and his energy on what really matters to parents, and get this right?

[Mr Gibb]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin)—or should I say the Lady Bracknell from Scunthorpe. I have to say to him that this Government are committed to raising standards in schools. Given the way the Opposition address this issue, I sometimes wonder whether they are as committed to raising standards as we are. In 2011, we conducted a review of the primary curriculum to ensure that it was closer to the curriculums being taught in the most successful education systems in the world. The review was overseen by the national curriculum review panel, which was made up of highly experienced headteachers and teachers in this country. We introduced the phonics check to ensure that six-year-olds were learning to read properly, and as a consequence of that reform 120,000 six-year-olds are reading more effectively today. We reviewed the reading curriculum—the English curriculum—to ensure that children became fluent readers who developed a habit of reading for pleasure. We reformed the maths curriculum so that children learn how to perform long multiplication by year 5 and long division by year 6, and so that they know their multiplication tables—up to 12 by 12—by heart by the end of year 4. Under the last Labour Government, one in three pupils were leaving primary school still unable to read, write and add up properly. Our Government are determined to address those issues.

Let me address some of the issues the hon. Gentleman raised. He talked about the removal of levels, but level descriptors were only ever intended to be used for the end of key stage statutory assessments, and yet over time came to dominate all assessment and teaching practice. That had a damaging impact on teaching and failed to give parents an accurate understanding of how their children were doing at school. The removal of levels allowed classroom assessment to return to its real purpose of helping teachers evaluate pupils’ knowledge and understanding of curriculum content. When we introduced the reception baseline in September last year, we said we would carry out a comparability study to establish whether it was fit for purpose. The study is now complete, and it has shown that the three different assessments being used by schools this year are not sufficiently comparable for us to create a fair starting point from which to measure pupils’ progress. We remain committed to the assessment of pupils in reception, and over the coming months we will be considering options for improving these assessment arrangements for beyond 2016-17. We will engage teachers, school leaders and parents in that work.

The hon. Gentleman brought up the spelling test. The investigation has uncovered further weaknesses in some of the Standards and Testing Agency’s clearance processes. I initiated that investigation, and the STA is now taking appropriate management action with the members of staff involved. We have already reviewed and tightened up the publication clearance processes.

This is a Government who are committed to reviewing the curriculum and to raising academic standards in our schools. This was always going to be a challenging month as schools got used to the new, more demanding curriculum and the new, more demanding assessments that follow that curriculum. I am confident—the Government are confident—that this is the right thing to do to raise academic standards in our schools to prepare young people for life in modern Britain and for an increasingly competitive global economy.

Education and Adoption Bill

Debate between Nick Gibb and Nicholas Dakin

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but the regional schools commissioners, of which there are eight around the country who know the local conditions and the local schools, will take action—indeed, they are taking action—when a multi-academy trust is failing to raise standards in its schools. We have taken action over 120 times to remove schools from multi-academy trusts that have not been delivering the support and sponsorship that we seek.

Once a sponsor has been identified for a failing school, it is commonplace for the sponsor to engage with parents about its plans for the school to ensure that they know what to expect. Often, parents are given the opportunity to share their views about any changes that the sponsor proposes to make. Lords amendment 7 will ensure that there is greater consistency for parents because the sponsor that is identified to take over a maintained school that is eligible for intervention will always be required to communicate to parents its plans for improving the school before the school is converted into a sponsored academy.

The hon. Members for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) have proposed four amendments to Lords amendment 7 that would replace the requirement on the proposed sponsor to communicate information about its plans to parents with a requirement for sponsors to consult parents about their improvement plans. I hope the House will recognise that that proposed change is more than just semantics. To ensure that underperforming schools are turned around as quickly as possible, clause 8 removes the requirement to consult on whether the school should become an academy so that that process cannot be misused to delay decisive action.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Gibb]

The Government consider that to be an important step that will allow failing schools to begin receiving the expert leadership and support that the hon. Gentleman seeks from day one.

Underperforming schools are carefully matched to sponsors. Trusting educational professionals to improve schools based on their experience and expertise is central to the academies programme. The proposal to impose a requirement on sponsors to consult parents about their plans to improve a school would represent a return to the rigid approach that allowed vested interests to prevent sponsors from taking decisive action and to delay the process of transformation.

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. and learned Friend is right, and nothing in the Bill prevents any amount of consultation, or a new sponsor from talking to staff, parents and so on. The amendment imposes a requirement on sponsors to communicate with parents. Elsewhere the Bill also prevents ideologically driven organisations and community groups that are determined to prevent a failing or underperforming school from becoming an academy from doing so. We will not tolerate failure in our school system, and we want to take action from day one.

[Nic Dakin]

Nobody will tolerate failure in schools. Will the Minister provide evidence of where the consultation has resulted in obstruction by vested interest?

[Mr Gibb]

In Committee I gave the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee ample illustrations of that. One example was Downhills school in Haringey, which was deeply underperforming. The process of conversion to an academy—it is now run by the Harris Federation—was drawn out, which delayed improvement in that school. It is now a highly performing primary school in Haringey, and it provides a much better quality of education. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not want such a process to be delayed in future.

Amendment 8 relates to underperforming academies. We have always been clear that we will tackle under- performance wherever it occurs, whether in a maintained school or an academy. We recognise, however, that our formal powers on failing and coasting academies vary depending on the terms of an academy’s funding agreement. In some cases, particularly in earlier academies, that can restrict our ability to take action as strongly or as swiftly as we would want. Regional schools commissioners already take swift and effective action to secure improvements in a minority of academies that underperform. We have issued 134 formal notices to underperforming academies and free schools, and we have moved to change the sponsor in 124 cases of particular concern.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Gibb and Nicholas Dakin

Monday 25th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

It is not necessary to spend that kind of money recruiting teachers, because there are many free websites for teacher recruitment. I have been to many schools that have very imaginative ways of recruiting—going into sixth forms, local employers and universities to recruit graduates for their School Direct scheme—and they find very high-quality graduates coming into teaching. The challenge we face in this country is that we have a very strong economy, which is something we would not have were the hon. Gentleman to become Chancellor in a future Labour Government.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Demand for teachers is growing. Are the Government, despite Ofsted’s warnings, still burying their head in the sand about the teacher recruitment and supply crisis on their watch? If they are not, what are they doing about it?

[Mr Gibb]

We are certainly not burying our head in the sand. We have the highest number of teachers—there are now 455,000, so 13,000 more today than there were in 2010. We are also taking action to deal with the challenge of having a strong economy. We have introduced bursaries—up to £30,000 for top physics graduates. We have introduced the “Your future their future” advertising campaign. We have removed the cap on physics and maths recruitment. We have expanded Teach First. We have incentives for returners; some 14,000 returners came back into teaching last year, which is a record number. We are improving behaviour in our schools to improve retention, and we are dealing with the workload, which is one of the reasons why teachers say they leave the profession.

Term-time Leave

Debate between Nick Gibb and Nicholas Dakin

Monday 26th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the very first time, Mr Hanson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing this debate on a subject that is close to his heart. We met in July to discuss these very issues. I also thank the Family Holiday Association and the Parents Union for their briefing on the matter.

I am pleased that this debate gives me the opportunity to set out the Government’s position and to hear other colleagues’ views. We have had an interesting debate, with powerful speeches from my hon. Friends who represent some of the most beautiful parts of the country, including my hon. Friends the Members for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones), for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) and for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). We also heard from the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson).

We are talking about an important issue. It is part of our objective of pursuing social justice. All our education reforms are about social justice and about ensuring that every child, whatever their background, benefits from an excellent education, so that they have a chance to succeed in the modern and demanding economy that Britain has become. That is what our behaviour policy is all about. It is what our reforms to the curriculum are all about. It is what our focus on phonics in the early teaching of reading in primary school is all about. It is what ensuring that all children, regardless of their background and regardless of geography, attend school regularly is all about.

I listened carefully to the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay about the impact on the tourism industry in Cornwall of our objective of ensuring that all children attend school regularly. I want to start by clarifying what the 2013 regulatory changes actually change. There is a widespread misunderstanding that before 2013, parents were entitled to take their children out of school for a holiday. That was not the case, and it never has been. The amendments to the law in 2013 simply clarify the position. Previously, as the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) has said, headteachers were able to grant leave for the purpose of family holiday in “special circumstances” for up to 10 school days per year, and longer in other circumstances. That was, however, being interpreted as a right to take two weeks off every year, which has never been the case. We wanted to clarify the legal position to make it clear that it is not the case that every person has a right to take their child out of school on a term-time holiday. Even before 2013, it was not the case.

I understand that in some areas of the country with seasonal industries, whether agriculture, horticulture or tourism, there are particular challenges. We are currently reforming education in this country to create a school-led system, so that decisions can be made close to home, reflecting local needs. Therefore, schools and local authorities in the south-west have a clear role to play in supporting the tourism industry, without compromising children’s attendance at school.

If parents and schools want different term dates, we encourage them to discuss that with their local authority. Academies, foundation schools, voluntary-aided schools and foundation special schools can, even now, set their own term dates. As of January 2014, some 76% of secondary schools and 35% of primary schools, educating some 52% of all registered pupils, already had responsibility for their own term and holiday dates. That does not have to involve massive restructuring. This year, schools in Reading returned for the autumn term on 8 September, and next year they will close for the summer holiday on 26 July. Similarly, the David Young community academy in Leeds operates seven terms, or blocks. That enables parents to take their children on holiday outside the expensive peak holiday season. Although it is at an early stage, another example of innovation is Visit Cornwall’s development of a proposal for a family enrichment week for early years and primary schools in the spring of each year. It strikes me that Cornwall provides a perfect example of a situation where the local industry should prompt schools and local authorities to change their term dates so that families who work in the tourism industry can take their own holidays outside of the peak season. These examples show that measures can be taken to address the needs of a local tourism industry, while ensuring that children stay in school.

Keeping children in school is crucial for achieving our aim of educational excellence everywhere. Evidence shows that pupils with no absence from school during key stage 2—in primary school—are over four and a half times more likely to reach level 5 or above at the end of primary school than pupils who missed 15% to 20% of school time. The outcomes are similar at key stage 4, where pupils with no absence are nearly three times more likely to achieve five A to C grades in their GCSEs, including English and maths, and around 10 times more likely to achieve the English baccalaureate range of GCSEs than pupils missing between 15% and 20% of school time across key stage 4.

When evidence attests to the benefits of good school attendance so clearly, parents have a duty to ensure that their children attend school regularly. No one in the Department for Education says that holidays are not enriching experiences—of course they are—but schools are in session for 190 out of 365 days a year, leaving 175 days in a year in which parents can take their children away on holiday.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall made a thoughtful speech. I listened carefully to what he said, but I do not accept that two weeks in each year of a child’s education is a drop in the ocean. As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich pointed out, even one week away from school in a year can make a significant difference. Some 44% of pupils with no absence achieve the English baccalaureate range of GCSEs, but the figure falls by a quarter to just 31.7% for pupils who miss up to 14 days of lessons over the two years in which they study for their GCSEs. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon quoted Charlie Taylor, the Government’s expert adviser on behaviour. In his 2012 report “Improving attendance at school”, Charlie Taylor calculated that if children are taken away for a two-week holiday during term time every year and have an average number of days off for sickness and appointments, by the time they leave school at 16 they will have missed a year of school. It is for that reason that I cannot support the request set out in the petition.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon said that no parent would use the two weeks of flexible term-time holidays every year, but he cannot guarantee that. We have heard powerful arguments about how important it is for parents to be able to take their children out of school; those arguments apply each and every year to all the pupils that that argument is deemed to affect. Instead, I encourage headteachers to use every measure they can to ensure that children attend school. Charlie Taylor found that the best schools work with parents to improve attendance and offer a wide range of support to help parents to get their children to school. If that is not successful, headteachers can, as a last resort, issue parents with a penalty notice or take them to court.

Criminal prosecution can result in fines of up to £2,500 and possible imprisonment. In 2012-13, about 52,000 penalty notices were issued. The number of prosecutions also increased in that period, but these measures have resulted in significant progress in reducing absence. Now 200,000 fewer pupils regularly miss school compared with five years ago—down from 433,100 in 2010. Overall, the absence rate is down from 6% in 2009 to 4.4% in the 2013-14 academic year, which means that 14.5 million fewer school days were lost to overall absence as a result of the combination of policies that we have introduced over the past five years. Some 3 million school days are lost due to holidays, and that figure is down significantly; 2.3 million more teaching days are happening as a result of clamping down on unauthorised term-time holidays. We should be proud of that if we believe that every child should have the opportunity of a first-rate start in life.

Headteachers continue to have discretion to approve term-time leave, but should only do so in exceptional circumstances. Many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), have called for more guidance. The National Association of Head Teachers published guidance in October, which made it clear that:

“If an event can reasonably be scheduled outside of term time then it would not be normal to authorise absence.”

It went on to say that children may need time away from school to visit a seriously ill relative or to attend the funeral service of a family member. However, term-time holidays and visiting family members abroad are not considered by the NAHT to be exceptional circumstances and it says that they should be scheduled only for holiday periods or outside of school hours.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham raised the example of a family going through very difficult circumstances and wanting time off as a family, a request that was refused by the school. The NAHT guidance says:

“Absences to visit family members are also not normally granted during term time if they could be scheduled for holiday periods or outside school hours. Children may however need time to visit seriously ill relatives.”

[Nic Dakin]

I just want to check whether the Minister is commending the NAHT guidance to headteachers as a point of reference? He is drawing good attention to it.

[Mr Gibb]

Yes. The whole essence of our education reforms is to hand back more power to the teaching profession. It makes absolute sense for teachers and headteachers to rely on the guidance produced by the NAHT. The introduction to the guidance states:

“Term times are for education. This is the priority. Children and families have 175 days off school to spend time together, including weekends and school holidays.”

That is the NAHT’s view and we think that it is correct.

Free School Meals (Colleges)

Debate between Nick Gibb and Nicholas Dakin

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gibb]

I will acknowledge that. That was at a time when the Labour Government had just inherited a golden economic legacy—

[Nic Dakin]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gibb]

No, as I am running out of time. As I was about to do, I acknowledge the honesty of the right hon. Gentleman’s hands-up confession.

The Association of Colleges is campaigning for the provision of free meals to be extended to all eligible FE students between 16 and 18. It estimates that it would cost £38 million to do so, although our own estimate is that it would cost significantly more than that. I sympathise with the arguments of my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Robert Halfon), for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) and for Redcar (Ian Swales), which they made well in their passionate contributions to the debate. Although the sums that I have just quoted may seem small compared with the overall education budget, in the current fiscal climate it would be genuinely difficult to increase spending by between £35 million and £70 million, however desirable it would be to extend free school meals to students at sixth-form and FE colleges. Of course, we keep the matter under review and I will discuss the arguments that have been made today with my ministerial colleagues. That is the commitment that I give to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field).

In education, the absolute priority of this Government is to close the attainment gap between those from wealthy backgrounds and those from poorer backgrounds, and all our policies are funded with that one aim in mind, whether the policy is about reading, behaviour or tackling underperforming schools. Our priority is to devolve as much of the Department for Education budget to the front line as possible. That is why we have managed to maintain school budgets at flat cash per pupil, despite the very difficult spending review. In addition, schools receive the pupil premium, which is specifically designed to boost attainment—

Education Bill

Debate between Nick Gibb and Nicholas Dakin

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. When a new head teacher comes into a school it can have important effects, and not necessarily beneficial ones if the school has been led by a very effective leader. That would be a risk assessment issue. I know that it is an issue that the new chief inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, is concerned about. We will reflect on those points in due course. The principle of having proportionate inspection and targeting the limited resources on schools that have the most pressing need is important. However, we must take it into account if a school that is graded as outstanding is not graded as outstanding in teaching, for instance.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I agree with what the Minister and the shadow Minister say about proportionality in inspection. However, it is important that outstanding schools are inspected by Ofsted as part of the ongoing learning of other schools. I hope that the Minister will ensure that Ofsted continues to do that to spread good practice in the system.

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Ofsted inspectors need to learn what an outstanding school looks like. That always was the case. Even when schools are exempted from inspection, inspectors will still see outstanding schools in themed inspections, which might look at how religious education or maths is taught. On those occasions, inspectors will still experience outstanding schools.

Education System (Dance)

Debate between Nick Gibb and Nicholas Dakin

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Nic Dakin]

Will the Minister accept that a relatively wide English bac will have a natural impact on the nature and number of minority subjects that any school can provide on its curriculum in key stage 4?

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. If we go through the English baccalaureate subjects—English, maths, science, one of the two humanities and a modern foreign language—all of them, apart from a modern foreign language and a humanity, are already compulsory to 16. We are talking about two GCSEs: history or geography, and a modern foreign language. Modern foreign languages were compulsory until 2004, and there is a body of opinion that says that they should be made compulsory again. The debate is about history and geography, and there has been a significant decline in those subjects over recent years, which is a cause for concern. None the less, if we add up all those GCSE subjects and add on a humanity, it is still small enough for pupils to study one, two or three more GCSEs beyond those core academic subjects, depending on which combination of those subjects they take. That is right because the Russell group universities and others say that those subjects are the facilitating subjects that keep options open for young people to make decisions about their career choices later in life. International evidence has shown that countries around the world in high-performing jurisdictions are delaying young people from making decisions over career choices. They keep options open for longer so that young people can make the right choices.

Academies (Funding)

Debate between Nick Gibb and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is right. The Secretary of State has announced that we are taking urgent action to convert the 200 least-performing primary schools in this country to academy status, transforming those schools and giving the youngsters who attend them a significantly better start to their education, and I would have thought that that should be the issue to be raised today.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Given the Department’s serial bungling, can the Minister tell us how much it has spent on defending legal challenges in the past year?

[Mr Gibb]

These issues are faced by all Governments and all Departments—[Hon. Members: “How much?”] I do not have those figures to hand, but if I am able to get them, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Education Maintenance Allowance

Debate between Nick Gibb and Nicholas Dakin

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

I will not give way now, as the speech by the hon. Gentleman’s Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Hartlepool, went over time slightly.

We have been determined to protect the money that goes to schools and the front line, and we have managed to ensure that school funding is protected in cash terms and will rise to cover increases in pupil numbers.

Perhaps the Opposition are arguing that there should be no cuts elsewhere, however. Perhaps they are arguing that they would cut the deficit more slowly, and allow it to remain a little longer—another half a billion pounds here, another billion there—so ensuring that we continue to pay enormous interest charges, which now stand at £120 million every day. That could be the Labour party’s approach: challenging the capital markets and calling the bluff of the people who invest the pension funds in sovereign debt to pull the plug or downgrade Britain’s credit rating.

That is not a risk that the coalition Government are prepared to take. Greece provides an example from not too far away, and Ireland is nearer still. We are not prepared to risk this country’s future. We are not prepared to plunge Britain into a currency and debt crisis, and we are not prepared to delay our economic recovery by failing to take the action that is necessary to get the public finances back under control. If we were to do so, young people—the people whom the Opposition purport to be representing today—would bear the brunt of the consequences of this failure. It is young people who suffer when companies freeze recruitment, and it is ensuring that our recovery happens sooner rather than later that lies at the heart of every difficult decision on spending taken by every Minister in this Government.

The overriding tenet of the coalition Government is to close the attainment gap between those from the poorest backgrounds and those from the wealthiest, so in making these changes to EMA we have been determined to ensure that no student is prevented from staying on in education because of genuine financial hardship. The hon. Member for Wigan made a passionate and thoughtful speech, but all her arguments can and will be addressed by the replacement support that we intend to put in place. It is wrong to undermine the research that was commissioned by the last Labour Government and carried out by the highly respectable National Foundation for Educational Research. It had a representative sample size of more than 2,000.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Gibb]

I will not give way.

We are targeting some of the savings from EMA to those young people who the NFER survey showed might not have stayed in education but for EMA.

Education Maintenance Allowance

Debate between Nick Gibb and Nicholas Dakin

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) on securing the debate? I know that he is passionate about the issue—as he said in his opening remarks, education maintenance allowances are close to his heart.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to see more young people, from lower income households in particular, staying on in education and gaining the qualifications they need to contribute to and enjoy the culture of our country and to obtain good employment. I assure the hon. Gentleman that one of the main priorities for the Government is to ensure that our education system is on a par with the best in the world. We want our schools and colleges to prepare their students for success. We will continue to provide support for the most vulnerable young people, so that they can stay on in education.

I acknowledge that the evidence from the EMA pilots shows that the EMA was successful in its early days at encouraging young people to stay on in education. The decision to end the scheme will be disappointing to many young people, in particular to those from the website whom the hon. Gentleman cited in his opening remarks: Nick; Alex, who said that without it he would have “no education” and “no future”; and Cassie Campbell, whom he cited towards the end of his speech and who said that without the EMA she would have to drop out. I will come to that point later in my comments, when I say that they will not have to drop out of education as a consequence of this decision.

We are, today, in a different world. Already, 96% of 16-year-olds and 94% of 17-year-olds participate in education, employment or training. Attitudes to staying on in education post-16 have changed. We are committed to going further still, to full participation for all young people up to the age of 18 by 2015. However, a payment designed as an incentive to stay on is no longer the right way to ensure that those facing real financial barriers to continuing their education get the support that they need. We need to look again at the most effective way of supporting the most vulnerable young people to stay on in education.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

As the Minister might well know, I was the principal of a sixth-form college until fairly recently. I can say from personal experience that the EMA has supported widening participation, the raising of aspiration and greater attainment among young people from a wide range of backgrounds. The EMA has certainly underpinned those developments—it is not an incentive, but an underpinning of continuing in further education. The Minister would be foolish to move away from his statements of only June this year, when he gave assurances that EMAs would continue into the future.

[Mr Gibb]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. There is evidence that EMAs have helped a small number of young people to stay on in education. However, that same evidence suggests that the scheme has a significant deadweight cost. Indeed, pilot evidence throughout the scheme, and more recent research, to which the hon. Member for Glasgow North West referred, from the National Foundation for Educational Research, found that almost 90% of young people receiving the EMA believed that they would still have participated in the courses they were doing if they had not received it.

The fact is, the EMA is a hugely expensive programme, costing more than £560 million a year, with costs of administration amounting to £36 million, but impacting on the participation of only around 10% of the young people who receive support. In effect, the taxpayer has been paying £9,300 for every extra young person who has stayed in education due to EMA. Most of the young people who receive the EMA would have made the same choices and achieved the same qualifications without it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Gibb and Nicholas Dakin

Monday 11th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

14. What estimate his Department has made of the number of children who will be eligible for free school meals in September 2010; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

The number of pupils of compulsory school age in maintained schools eligible for free school meals was 1,179,880 in January 2010. The Department has not produced an estimate of the number of pupils eligible for free school meals in September 2010; the figures are produced annually as part of the annual school census, completed by local authorities in January each year. Leaving time for compilation, the next set of figures will be available in May 2011.

[Nic Dakin]

I thank the Minister for his answer. He will note my interest as a former principal. Does he think it is fair that 16 to 18-year-olds attending colleges are ineligible for free school meals, when 16% in FE colleges and 10% in sixth-form colleges are from disadvantaged backgrounds, compared with only 7% in maintained schools?

[Mr Gibb]

I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I share his view. We have committed to maintaining spending on free school meals this year. Further announcements will be made after the spending review.